State v. Heyward

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Maulique Alexander Heyward, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001711

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-055
Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Tommy Evans, Jr., both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Maulique Alexander Heyward appeals his convictions and
sentences of forty years' imprisonment for murder and five years' imprisonment for
possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal,
Heyward argues the circuit court erred in refusing to charge the jury on
self-defense. We find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
charge the jury on self-defense because Heyward testified (1) he threatened the
victim immediately prior to shooting him, (2) the victim was not armed, and (3) the
victim was not attacking Heyward when he shot the victim. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C.
469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the
[circuit court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion.");
State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of
discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court either lack evidentiary
support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 31,
667 S.E.2d 728, 732 ("To warrant reversal, a [circuit] court's refusal to give a
requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant.");
State v. Slater, 373 S.C. 66, 69-70, 644 S.E.2d 50, 52 (2007) ("To establish
self-defense in South Carolina, four elements must be present: (1) the defendant
must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) the defendant must have
been in actual imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily
injury, or he must have actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his
life or sustaining serious bodily injury; (3) if his defense is based upon his belief of
imminent danger, defendant must show that a reasonably prudent person of
ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the belief that he was
actually in imminent danger and that the circumstances were such as would
warrant a person of ordinary prudence, firmness, and courage to strike the fatal
blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm or the loss of his life; and
(4) the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger."); State v.
Light, 378 S.C. 641, 650, 664 S.E.2d 465, 469 (2008) ("If there is any evidence in
the record from which it could reasonably be inferred that the defendant acted in
self-defense, the defendant is entitled to instructions on the defense, and the
[circuit court's] refusal to do so is reversible error."); State v. Santiago, 370 S.C.
153, 159, 634 S.E.2d 23, 26 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A self-defense charge is not
required unless the evidence supports it.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.